Study co-led by Rutgers shows that DEI initiatives can increase division and hostility

A recent study claims to prove that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives can be counterproductive and harmful, defeating their own purpose by increasing division and distrust. 

The report, titled: “Instructing Animosity: How DEI pedagogy produces the hostile attribution bias,” was published Monday by the Rutgers University Social Perception Lab and the Network Contagion Research Institute. 

“The prominent ‘anti-oppressive pedagogy’ in DEI programming can carry perceived rhetorical threats for those whose politics or other beliefs run counter to the fundamental premises of the critical paradigm from which the pedagogy derives,” the report found. Specifically, DEI initiatives can demonize those who oppose them as “oppressive, racist, or fascist” simply because they disagree. 

[RELATED: Conservative anti-CRT activist Chris Rufo to advise Trump on measures to crack down on DEI in higher ed] 

“Across all groupings, instead of reducing bias, [DEI trainings] engendered a hostile attribution bias (Epps & Kendall, 1995), amplifying perceptions of prejudicial hostility where none was present, and punitive responses to the imaginary prejudice,” the scholars stated. 

The report says that DEI trainings and materials frequently rely on the words of Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, two authors who have faced widespread criticism for their promotion of Critical Race Theory. 

The researchers found that Kendi and DiAngelo’s works promote divisive “core themes” such as: “Normal institutions and Western ideologies are secretly enforcing racist agendas and White people are beneficiaries and entitled to the benefits of systemic white supremacy and racism,” “Western countries are compromised by virtue of their racist ideology and past,” and “Anti-racist discrimination is the only solution to racist discrimination.”

Lee Jussim, a Rutgers psychology professor and one of the report’s authors, told Campus Reform: “Perhaps the biggest contribution of our research has been to make it easier for social scientists to conduct and report research reporting results identifying the negative side effects of, DEI pedagogy, rhetoric, and policies.  Until about 2022, scholarship bluntly critical of DEI was met by academic outrage mobs who successfully pressured journals to retract the articles.  Nonetheless, our report included only three studies.  Although we plan to submit an expanded and more detailed report, possibly with additional studies, for publication in a peer reviewed journal, we have not done that yet.  All initial social science reports on any topic, even when published in peer reviewed journals, should be treated as preliminary and interpreted very cautiously, pending skeptical vetting by other scholars and laypeople.  Including ours.”

DEI programs, initiatives, and principles are widespread throughout American higher education, though several schools have recently closed down or altered their DEI offices and positions in some fashion, including the Universities of Missouri-Kansas City, North Carolina Wilmington, and Mississippi.

[RELATED: Walmart ending multiple DEI practices, joining growing trend in Corporate America and higher ed] 

The University of Michigan’s DEI program has also found itself in the national spotlight recently after a New York Times article revealed that DEI at the school caused division and paranoia instead of increasing harmony, despite the school’s spending of exorbitant amounts on the program.

DEI has also received attention at both the state and federal level. States such as Alabama and Florida have banned DEI in public colleges and universities, and Senators such as Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) have taken action to try to curb the influence of DEI on American campuses. 

Campus Reform has reached out to Rutgers University and the Network Contagion Research Institute for comment. This article will be updated accordingly.